I got this of twitter, found it very difficult to process and could not copy and paste or even zoom.

With a bit of zoom it can be read though, looks like the same outdated arguments.

As the interviewer in the Expresso interview Sept. 08 said: 40 apartments were investigated and the dogs only marked yours. Ten cars and they only reacted to yours.

The only argument Gerry has for that is to diss the dogs. Thank goodness he's not doing much medical work. On statistical principles alone, whether the dogs found cadaver odour/blood or not, the alerts themselves

speak volumes

Their own reactions to the results were if anything more damning than the results of the CSI dogs.

Bloood....blood everywhere , the fact is the dog reacted to blood ...what it is supposed to do, whether it be mrs smith who cut her finger before the Mccanns rented it or mr brown who cut himself shaving, the dog detected to human blood, she did her Job and she was RIGHT....we are not disputing that it could off been one off ten people's blood, it was detected....enter the cadaver dog....the dog detected a dead body where coincidentally blood was detected by the blood dog....is this person saying that mrs smith died in the apt or mr brown died .....as far as we know the people that left the blood are alive and kicking to this day....they concentrate too much on the blood dog and totally ignore the cadaver dog.....as one person continually says in her book....'mr grimes teaches his dogs using Decomposing pigs'....so we have to ask one question .....Did someone bring a pig with them on holiday and it died or did a human being die in alt 5a.

They initially never denied there was cadaver odour, they tried to explain it away with the kind of excuse one might hear from a ten year old.

'dogs picked up scent off Madeleine on the street hours after she disappeared'

Above insinuates that madeleine was alive when she was abducted and to prove it her scent was picked up by the dogs .

What it really says it, madeleine scent WAS there, obviously.... as was stated my the Mccanns that they went to the baptiste supermarket to buy things for breakfast ...so her scent was picked up, her scent must off been there on the first day or even the second day and it is this scent the dogs picked up.

kitti wrote:'dogs picked up scent off Madeleine on the street hours after she disappeared'

Above insinuates that madeleine was alive when she was abducted and to prove it her scent was picked up by the dogs .

What it really says it, madeleine scent WAS there, obviously.... as was stated my the Mccanns that they went to the baptiste supermarket to buy things for breakfast ...so her scent was picked up, her scent must off been there on the first day or even the second day and it is this scent the dogs picked up.

There is no guarantee that what the dogs reacted to was Maddie's scent because there is no guarantee that the items they were given had ever been near Maddie. The blanket may have been washed. All the rest of the children's clothes were washed on Saturday the 5th by teh OC laundry. It' s also very strange that Kate didn't give them Maddie's clothes (e.g. the tennis shorts, the pink top from the pool photo, trainers) but the blanket. Which may well have been washed. The blanket disappeared forever by the time the next lot of dogs (which had to come from Lisbon Kate, strangely enough not every resort keeps a kennel of tracker dogs) the first lot were just used for crowd control the search and rescue were deployed around Pdl and the tracker dogs followed the route around 11.00 pm. on the 4th. Gerry complained to Trish Cameron around 11.00 p.m. on the 3rd that there weren't yet any dogs. Imo he'd laid a trail for them.

The PJ rented the Apartment from Mrs McCanns for one Year , form I think June 2007 until June 2008 , the PJ made a big mistake not having a recon while the McCanns were still in Portugal and the OC Staff had not yet left PDL......I will never understand why!!!

Panda wrote:The PJ rented the Apartment from Mrs McCanns for one Year , form I think June 2007 until June 2008 , the PJ made a big mistake not having a recon while the McCanns were still in Portugal and the OC Staff had not yet left PDL......I will never understand why!!!

1 - Why do the PJ want them to take part in the re-enactment?2 - What is the aim, what are the PJ trying to achieve with the re-enactment?3 - Why so close to the anniversary?4 - Why don't the PJ use actors?5 - Will the footage of the re-enactment be released to the press/TV etc?6 - What protection is there for the friends in relation to the media coverage/likely frenzy?

Thanks tigger, I you were the Parents and their "Friends" wouldn't you do anything asked of you if it meant finding Madeleine? Rachel Mapilly textedStuart Prior asking if he thought they should go and he replied that in his opinion "no useful purpose would be served." I blame the PJ for not organising the recon earlier , who knows what might have been learned!!!

kitti wrote:'dogs picked up scent off Madeleine on the street hours after she disappeared'

Above insinuates that madeleine was alive when she was abducted and to prove it her scent was picked up by the dogs .

What it really says it, madeleine scent WAS there, obviously.... as was stated my the Mccanns that they went to the baptiste supermarket to buy things for breakfast ...so her scent was picked up, her scent must off been there on the first day or even the second day and it is this scent the dogs picked up.

There is no guarantee that what the dogs reacted to was Maddie's scent because there is no guarantee that the items they were given had ever been near Maddie. The blanket may have been washed. All the rest of the children's clothes were washed on Saturday the 5th by teh OC laundry. It' s also very strange that Kate didn't give them Maddie's clothes (e.g. the tennis shorts, the pink top from the pool photo, trainers) but the blanket. Which may well have been washed. The blanket disappeared forever by the time the next lot of dogs (which had to come from Lisbon Kate, strangely enough not every resort keeps a kennel of tracker dogs) the first lot were just used for crowd control the search and rescue were deployed around Pdl and the tracker dogs followed the route around 11.00 pm. on the 4th. Gerry complained to Trish Cameron around 11.00 p.m. on the 3rd that there weren't yet any dogs. Imo he'd laid a trail for them.

You don't miss a thing After more than five years of procrastination - it turned into a war of attrition a long time ago, but Dr. Amaral is still there - and he will have his day I'm sure. It may not all have come out in the wash, to coin a phrase, but I'm certain it will eventually come out in the courtroom.

mossman wrote:So two parents and two file numbers. Even if, as Clarrie would say, there is a wholly innocent explanation for the existence of the file numbers, surely the fact they are empty cant be explained away ?

Even if the files were created as normal procedure when a child disappears, surely this would be stated in the file ? Some statement to the effect that it was created as a result of a child being reported abducted or whatever.

To assign a number and have absolutely nothing there would surely at the very least create chaos within the system and lead to a very long file list, many of which contain nothing !

I dont have internet at the moment apart from myPhone but can someone please goto www.whatdotheyknow.com and put in a freedom of information request to release the policy and procedure with relation to the circumstances that someone would have one of these file numbers created. That should help answer a lot of our speculation! And we'll know within 28 days!Dont mention the mccanns tough, just leave it really generic so they have no excuse not to release the info!

Just after she went missing SOMEONE was on tv saying that Madeleine was a sleepwalker and had been found outside the house...sleepwalking.

Now, you don't sleepwalk until you are at least 3 year old, I looked it up.

So was she a sleepwalker and was she found outside the house and who found her and if so, who reported it.

If it is true and it was reported it must off been in there old house BUT she was too young to sleepwalk BUT if she did and it happened on more than one occasion and the police were involved then perhaps a record was kept off it or even a FILE.

Now, if you look at that e-mail, it makes clear a number of things. Firstly, they, the experts on dating, are not sure they can date it. Secondly, they make it clear they have found more than enough collagen (only found in mammals) to date the fragment, but then change their mind again and say it is too badly degraded. Also, note the use of the terms ‘skull’ and ‘bone.’ If the experts cannot be sure on 28th March, how can anyone say that I knew on 24th February? On 31st March, Ms Brock e-mailed again. In this e-mail, headed, “Re: Jersey Skull for C14 Dating,” she said that ‘the Director had now expressed concern about what the fragment was. The Technician (who is not an Anthropologist) who was carrying out the process commented that it ‘looked like a coconut husk.’ She went on to say “If it isn’t bone I am really sorry,” but then finishes with “although it could well have been poorly preserved bone as I described it.”

So has a Whole historic Child Abuse investigation been trashed because "The Technician said it looked liked a COCONUT HUSK" just crazy

I would like to say a very big thanks to Spartacus & Rooney for bringing this up. I never new where the term came from now im SHOCKED

This is from Lenny Harper

The above is only part of the information that I was given by the Anthropologists. It gives a vastly different picture to that supplied by Mr. Gradwell and Mr. Warcup and so enthusiastically promoted by Ms. Simon. These entries, made at the time by the Anthropologists, make it clear, that not only did they believe that they were finding human bones, but that the bones had been deposited there fairly recently, in some cases as recently as the 1960’s onwards. Reading the above, could anyone say that the dig at HDLG was a waste of time and money? Where do they get the conclusion that only one human bone was found? More puzzling perhaps, how can Mr. Gradwell or Mr. Warcup claim that I should not have authorised the search at HDLG? The problem was not identifying the bones as human – the expert Anthropologists did that very well. The problem was the contradictions in the carbon dating process which is not that reliable. When we questioned the company who pioneered the process we used they told us that they had taken a live fish out of the sea and carbon dated it several days later. The process told them the fish was thousands of years old. Our Anthropologist told us a similar story about a baby found dead in a house. Although they knew the baby had only been dead since the 1970s, the carbon dating gave a vastly different date. The carbon dating was at odds with the respected expert in the UK who said the bones were only a few decades old. Who was correct? More importantly, why did Mr. Gradwell and Mr. Warcup make no mention of all of this and why quote only selectively from the above document. The document is not being revealed here for the first time. Messrs Gradwell and Warcup quoted from it, albeit selectively, and the Sunday Times also referred to it. What it does do is completely and utterly destroy the suggestion that I exaggerated or lied about what I was told. It will make you wonder though why Mr. Gradwell should say that the dig was a waste of time and money.

I lived in Jersey for many Years sometimes passed Haut de la Garenne but knew nothing about it until the child abuse was declared by Syvret, a Jersey Councillor. I did contact my friends who still live there and they do not believe in the child abuse accusation . I don't know enough to have an opinion .

Panda wrote:I lived in Jersey for many Years sometimes passed Haut de la Garenne but knew nothing about it until the child abuse was declared by Syvret, a Jersey Councillor. I did contact my friends who still live there and they do not believe in the child abuse accusation . I don't know enough to have an opinion .

Dont' forget Savile was quick to say he'd never been there. Then a photograph of him surrounded by the orphans turned up. Savile was still powerful enough at the time to stop anyone publishing material he didn't want to see the light of day.

The fact that Savile could do what he did for so many years yet not be "outed" until after his death is disgraceful. So many in the T.V. industry must have known but turned a blind eye. We talk about the dirty old men who go to Thailand and other foreign Countries , but there are enough in Britain who have never been caught.

Saville is more than your average joe tv personality who was left to do 'his thing'...he had christmas dinner at number 10 on a few occasions...numerous encounters with royalty,the keys to bradmoor & much more...do you think that anyone allowed such privileges would not be vetted by the establishment ? it appears he served a purpose to serve & going by his total freedom...he served that purpose well

matthew wrote:Saville is more than your average joe tv personality who was left to do 'his thing'...he had christmas dinner at number 10 on a few occasions...numerous encounters with royalty,the keys to bradmoor & much more...do you think that anyone allowed such privileges would not be vetted by the establishment ? it appears he served a purpose to serve & going by his total freedom...he served that purpose well

And he was creepy.. not funny at all, celeb, nothing more. But for all those who let him to do what ever... for them he was their private money maker. All covered up, because those in power didn't want stop their money to come in (BBC, hospitals, charities, children homes etc.) Follow the money works also in this case, to find all those who helped that creep to do what ever he was doing. Criminals, the whole lot. Incl the mccann supporter, aaah..so charity, Rantzen. Yak!